25 replies to this topic

[Mechteric]

Steamrolls happen even in evenly matched games. All it takes is for one team to get the advantage in terrain, positioning, momentum. Doesn't matter. It could be just as likely the very next match if those same teams played against each other the steamroll could go the other way. Its very scenario dependent once you get to the point where you're fighting against a relatively evenly matched team and happens most often I've seen in 8v8's where it doesn't degenerate into a chaotic brawl.

[Yalan]

Comassion, on 21 February 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

Keep playing the game and it'll start to even out now that you're losing matches, and we're winning matches, and as time goes on we'll both approach more accurate ELO scores.

If all you did was stomp around in 4-mans, you may be in for a rough set of matches as your ELO goes toward a more accurate value. Remember that for every match you lose, your future matches will get easier, and for every match you win they will get harder, until you're at a level where you're looking at something close to a 50/50 win/loss record.

I can't be the only person that sees a result like this as karma rofl. Now they are the ones getting 'pug stomped' while it balances out.

[Comassion]

Sug, on 21 February 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

God I hate that ratio. Why even play if you lose 50% of the time? Just sit at your desk, flip a ******* coin and smile.

By that logic, why play if you win 90% of the time? Just roll a d10, and smile if you don't roll a 1.

The principle purpose and idea behind Elo is so that the matchmaker can build evenly matched teams and pit them against each other. This results in closer, more exciting matches - in my first two games after initial rollout of Elo, the losing team got at least 4 kills, and they were very good matches - some of the best pug games I've had, really.

Elo means that the guys who are holding the weapons pointed at you are about as good with them as you are. It's time you didn't take your opponents lightly.

And incidentally, Elo doesn't FORCE you to have a 50/50 win/loss ratio. You are still in control of your 'mech and of your portion of the match. You can absolutely win 90%+ of your matches - but if you are going to do that, the game will pit you against harder and harder opponents, and the challenge will rise to your level of ability. If you want to win practically all the time, then you're going to need to be the best of the best - so good that there simply isn't anyone else as good as your team to be matched against during the times you play. You'll need optimal builds, optimal tactics and teamwork, and you need to be on the ball at all times, because that's what it's going to take to be the top team in the game. At that level, you will never play against pugs or 4-man groups - you will always face another 8-man, and it'll be made of top-tier players like yourself, and will be hard and brutal every time.

You likely aren't one of those players (nor am I). But if a 50/50 win/loss ratio doesn't appeal to you, step up your game.

Padic, on 21 February 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Don't forget that Elo ranking cares not just whether you won or lost, but also the Elo of your opponents.

I'm pretty sure that a hypothetical team who only played 8v8 and who had a 50/50 win/loss ratio will still have a very high Elo because you're winning (well, half the time, anyway) against people who have very high Elo rankings.

I'm discussing real teams who have mainly played 8v8 since they started recording statistics for Elo (prior to the Elo system being used in the matchmaker). In time your statement will be true because coordinated 8-mans will generally beat the tar out of teams that aren't coordinated 8-mans, but I'm assuming that the initial Elo number for everyone started the same at 1300. Therefore the 8-mans that spent their time banging into each other at a close win/loss ratio still end up close to 1300 (probably slightly higher as some 8-man players did some pug games as well, no doubt), but the people who rolled around as 4-man pugstompers winning all their matches could have built up to 1800+ easily.

One potential issue here is that until the 8-man and 4-man or less queues get merged, we may still see this in effect, so once that merge happens then there may be several days or a couple weeks of 8-mans facing teams that aren't up to the challenge because their Elo scores are even, but given some time that will also sort itself out and you'll wind up with the situation you described. However, they may as well do that sooner rather than later, and we'll start getting the growing pains of the system out of the way.

Edited by Comassion, 21 February 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[Mackman]

Sug, on 21 February 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

God I hate that ratio. Why even play if you lose 50% of the time? Just sit at your desk, flip a ******* coin and smile.

Hopefully when CW comes out there'll be some actual thought involved with playing this game and not just random matches.



Also Elo only cares about wins/losses.

So... you think that only good players should be able to enjoy the game? And everyone else should just be fodder for the good players to stomp on?

Don't focus on 50%. 50% is the end result, not the mechanism that it uses. The game doesn't say, "Alright, he's sitting at 55% wins, better throw him against a team of elites where he'll be sure to get stomped." No. The game doesn't even look at your win percentage. Every single match, the game says the same thing: "Alright, let's make this as evenly matched as possible."

It just so happens that with all but the very best and the very worst, this will result in you winning about half of your games. And that's as it should be, because it provides everyone, at all skill levels, with the maximum amount of both challenge and fun.

[Gamgee]

So far I have been in teams stomping around destroying people, I imagine I'll hit my peak soon. What if I don't? What if I keep going?

Imagine that... killing everyone in a Pretty Baby.

P.P.S I would average around... 500-700 damage in my Jenner. I consider that on my low end, but because I am so much more precise with it that is actually extremely high. I was generally coring like... 3-5 mechs a match provided they were fighting and distracted.

In my PB I seem to get dead set average of around 700.... sometimes spikes as high as 1k, but I consider that a bad thing since I am being sloppy and not killing as fast I should. Though I oddly enough get more money for it.

[Padic]

Comassion, on 21 February 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

I'm discussing real teams who have mainly played 8v8 since they started recording statistics for Elo (prior to the Elo system being used in the matchmaker). In time your statement will be true because coordinated 8-mans will generally beat the tar out of teams that aren't coordinated 8-mans, but I'm assuming that the initial Elo number for everyone started the same at 1300. Therefore the 8-mans that spent their time banging into each other at a close win/loss ratio still end up close to 1300 (probably slightly higher as some 8-man players did some pug games as well, no doubt), but the people who rolled around as 4-man pugstompers winning all their matches could have built up to 1800+ easily.

Um. Yeah. You're totally right - but only with the assumption that all 16 players in the match only play 8v8s (I don't play 8 mans, so I don't know how reasonable this assumption is) - I'd have guessed that most 8v8 players dabble in and excel at the other game modes.

I don't think it would take very many players with a high Elo score from time they spend successfully lone wolfing or 4manning to bump up the Elo's of everyone else in the 8-man bracket.